Jump to content

More AGW Canards: Drought in Texas and Oklahoma


Recommended Posts

More AGW Canards: Drought in Texas and Oklahoma

Sierra Rayne

During 2011, Texas and Oklahoma experienced a significant drought -- something not unusual in these regions. But like clockwork, the climate hysteria started to appear in the scientific literature and mainstream media. Seth Borenstein from the Associated Press covered the issue. Borenstein's article featured a discussion regarding the findings of a study in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) by James Hansen and colleagues.

 

 

In the Acknowledgments section of Hansen's PNAS paper, we find the following statement:

 

We thank Tom Karl, Andrew Weaver, and an anonymous editor for helpful reviews that significantly improved the paper.

 

Borenstein's article includes the following quotation:

 

The science in Hansen's study is excellent 'and reframes the question,' said Andrew Weaver, a climate scientist at the University of Victoria.

 

Responsible objective journalism should require Borenstein to inform his readers that Weaver was a reviewer for Hansen's paper, putting Weaver in a real and/or perceived conflict of interest.

 

In Borenstein's article, as well as in Hansen's paper, the 2011 Texas/Oklahoma drought was attributed to climate change, as Borenstein's notes:

 

In a blunt departure from most climate research, Hansen's study -- based on statistics, not the more typical climate modeling -- blames these three heat waves purely on global warming:

- Last year's devastating Texas-Oklahoma drought.

- The 2010 heat waves in Russia and the Middle East, which led to thousands of deaths.

- The 2003 European heat wave blamed for tens of thousands of deaths, especially among the elderly in France.

 

Hansen's PNAS paper makes similar claims:

 

It follows that we can state, with a high degree of confidence, that extreme anomalies such as those in Texas and Oklahoma in 2011 and Moscow in 2010 were a consequence of global warming because their likelihood in the absence of global warming was exceedingly small.

 

In order to test these claims, we can look to NOAA's National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) database, which keeps climate and drought severity index records for Texas and Oklahoma dating back to the late 1800s.

 

There is not a single statistically significant summertime or annual temperature, precipitation, or drought index trend for Texas between 1895 and 2011. Indeed, there is a more likely chance that long-term drought severity is declining in Texas rather than increasing.

 

For Oklahoma, the climate is clearly warming, but it is also becoming wetter -- both on an annual basis. Summertime temperatures and precipitation in Oklahoma are not changing. The severity of drought conditions in Oklahoma appears to be declining over time, not increasing. There also appears to be no evidence for a trend towards greater climatic or drought variability in either state.

 

Unfortunately, these articles were not the only troubling public statements about the Texas drought. During the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology hearings into "Drought Forecasting, Monitoring and Decision-making: A Review of the National Integrated Drought Information System [NIDIS]" on July 25, 2012, Dr. James S. Famiglietti -- director of the University of California Center for Hydrologic Modeling and Professor of Earth System Science and Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of California at Irvine -- made the following statements in his written testimony:

 

Could we have seen this drought coming? Consider the Texas drought, which has been characterized as having started about 18 months ago. However, data from the NASA GRACE mission shown here, which depict changes in all of the water stored in the central part of the Gulf Coast Drainage (USGS HUC2 region) suggest that the decline has been going on for much longer - three years or perhaps more. If such data had been integrated into NIDIS, could they have provided an earlier warning and better preparedness (data latency issues notwithstanding)? With the proper level of investment in monitoring and predictive tools, maybe, yes, we could have seen it coming.

 

Famiglietti presented the following figure along with this written testimony:

 

TX%20Drought.png

 

There appears to be no evidence in this figure to support Famiglietti's claim that the Texas drought -- and associated water storage decline -- had been going on for longer than 18 months, and certainly no evidence to support his claims "that the decline has been going on for much longer -- three years or perhaps more."

 

If one looks closely at this figure (the data for which do not appear to be publicly available), Famiglietti's linear regression line appears to be strongly defined by the last year of data. Indeed, in the period before the last 18 months of record (i.e., from 2002 to 2010), there appears to be no significant trend in total water storage. One could even argue for an increasing trend from 2006 up to 2010. Consequently, there appears to be no evidence in the 2002-2010 data record that any 2011 drought predictions could have been made at a reasonable level of confidence.

 

Overall, there seems to be no evidence that climate change was responsible for the Texas/Oklahoma drought of 2011. As well, Famiglietti's presentation to the House committee is not persuasive that Texas's drought could have been predicted.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If only the GW minions would get their head out of their azz. This Professor nailed it, and the truth he speaks is not profiting him, like the lies and deceiving that Al Gore is spewing.
author’s credentials:
Ian Rutherford Plimer is an Australian geologist, professor emeritus of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne, professor of mining geology at the University of Adelaide, and the director of multiple mineral exploration and mining companies. He has published 130 scientific papers, six books and edited the Encyclopedia of Geology.
Born
12 February 1946 (age 67)
Residence
Nationality
Australian
Fields
Institutions
Notable awards
Eureka Prize (1995, 2002),Centenary Medal (2003), Clarke Medal (2004)
Where Does the Carbon Dioxide Really Come From? Professor Ian Plimer could not have said it better! If you've read his book you will agree, this is a good summary.


Plimer: "Okay, here's the bombshell. The volcanic eruption in Iceland. Since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet - all of you.
Of course, you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying to suppress - it’s that vital chemical compound that every plant requires to live and grow and to synthesize into oxygen for us humans and all animal life. I know....it's very disheartening to realize that all of the carbon emission savings you have accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and expense of driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till midnight to finish your kids "The Green Revolution" science project, throwing out all of your non-green cleaning supplies, using only two squares of toilet paper, putting a brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your SUV and speedboat, vacationing at home instead of abroad, Nearly getting hit every day on your bicycle, replacing all of your 50 cent light bulbs with $10.00 light bulbs.....well, all of those things you have done have all gone down the tubes in just four days.
The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth's atmosphere in just four days - yes, FOUR DAYS - by that volcano in Iceland has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud at any one time - EVERY DAY. I don't really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when the volcano Mt Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth.
Yes, folks, Mt Pinatubo was active for over
One year - think about it.
Of course, I shouldn't spoil this 'touchy-feely tree-hugging' moment and mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well-recognized 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which keeps happening despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change.
And I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud, but the fact of the matter is that the bush fire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years. And it happens every year.
Just remember that your government just tried to impose a whopping carbon tax on you, on the basis of the bogus 'human-caused' climate-change scenario. Hey, isn't it interesting how they don’t mention 'Global Warming' anymore, but just 'Climate Change' - you know why?
It’s because the planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past century and these global warming bull artists got caught with their pants down.
And, just keep in mind that you might yet have an Emissions Trading Scheme - that whopping new tax - imposed on you that will achieve absolutely nothing except make you poorer. It won’t stop any volcanoes from erupting, that’s for sure.
But, hey, relax......give the world a hug and have a nice day!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. All weather problems are in part caused by over population.

 

2. Floods and droughts could both be eliminated if flood waters were

pumped in pipelines from the upper Mississippi and Missouri Rivers to

dry areas in the Southwest, watering the lands and recharging the

acquifers..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...